Canada stands by torture of child

The BBQ Pit
121

It makes for a mildly interesting sidelight to the conversation. I wonder how the language came to be inserted, but not enough to derail the conversation from the rights of post-natal people.

If it isn’t obvious, I have no worthwhile opinion on the legalistics of the case. I am appalled by the behavior of just about everyone involved. There was a time that most of us here would have dismissed out of hand the notion that a 15 year old boy could be afforded any mistreatment at all, not even delving into whether or not such abuse was appropriate for grown men. Or justifiable by any standard of decency.

9/11 changed everything. Certainly changed us. Or maybe it simply revealed what was always there…

122

… sorry, wrong thread.

123

[QUOTE=elucidator]

9/11 changed everything. Certainly changed us. Or maybe it simply revealed what was always there…
[/QUOTE]

The latter, I believe. I’ve a limited confidence in human goodness, and last I checked, Americans are humans.

Anyway : When I read such threads, I indeed often think that, had I said when I joined this board in 2001, that such topics as torture, secret detention without trial, wire-tapping without a court order, etc.. would be a matter of serious debate in the American society within some years, I would have been laughed at and/or pitted by all dopers, regardless of their political orientation.

The fact that these issues are argued upon the way they are is a shame, indeed. It’s probably an even worse indictment than the fact that such things took place, actually.

124

[QUOTE=elucidator]
I think that insertion of the “from conception” language likely reflects another agenda altogether, it is dragging in a whole different set of issues, in order to bolster an agenda that has little, if anything, to do with the matter at hand. It sort of jumps out at one, don’t you think?
[/QUOTE]

No, it doesn’t. In my view, you cannot talk meaningfully about securing rights for people without discussing rights for the unborn. They are part and parcel of the same package; a society that kills its most helpless children caanot be said to meaningfully guarantee human rights for anyone.

I know you don’t agree with that view, but many people do, especially many people in the Americas. And they sought to include that language, and were successful.

If you (or anyone) is going to point to that document and say what barbarians we are for ignoring some of its provisions, you need to acknowledge we’re also barbarians for ignoring its implicit comment on abortion.

You can’t approach the thing a la carte, extolling its wisdom when it supports your cause and sneering at it as agenda-driven when it doesn’t.

125

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
ALL the rights in the Constitution are reserved for U.S. citizens.
[/QUOTE]

That isn’t what it actually says, you know. In fact, that’s not even close to what it says.

The Fifth Amendment does not say “Citizen” or “American.” It specifically requires that no person can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

The Sixth Amendment, which requires speedy trials, refers to “All criminal prosecutions” and refers simply to the right of “the accused” to a speedy trial. No specific rights are reserved for citizens.

The Eighth Amendment does not assign any rights to anyone, citizen or otherwise. It simply states that cruel and unusual punishment cannot be inflicted (as well as excessive bail or fines.)

If the Constitution has recently been amended to change these sections, then by all means provide us with the cites.

126

[QUOTE=Bricker]
…You can’t approach the thing a la carte, extolling its wisdom when it supports your cause and sneering at it as agenda-driven when it doesn’t.
[/QUOTE]

Simply because I recognize the agenda driven element does not mean I am “sneering”. And, no, clearly I do not accept your premise that all human rights must be built upon a foundation of concern for the unborn. And an embryo is not a baby, anymore than scaffolding and a blueprint is a building. And tormenting a teenage boy is foul and repulsive.

Other than those minor points, we are largely in agreement.

127

[QUOTE=RickJay]
That isn’t what it actually says, you know. In fact, that’s not even close to what it says.

The Fifth Amendment does not say “Citizen” or “American.” It specifically requires that no person can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
[/quote]

That’s why The Holocaust was such a tragedy, it was unconstitutional.

[QUOTE=RickJay]
The Sixth Amendment, which requires speedy trials, refers to “All criminal prosecutions” and refers simply to the right of “the accused” to a speedy trial. No specific rights are reserved for citizens.
[/quote]

Exactly the provision that finally got Nelson Mandela out of prison.

[QUOTE=RickJay]
The Eighth Amendment does not assign any rights to anyone, citizen or otherwise. It simply states that cruel and unusual punishment cannot be inflicted (as well as excessive bail or fines.)

If the Constitution has recently been amended to change these sections, then by all means provide us with the cites.
[/QUOTE]

Pol Pot wept in shame when he realized that he had violated the rights of so many people.

Really, how long must we continue with the foolish “The Constitution of the U.S. applies to all people, everywhere” nonsense? Hell, right now you guys are prosecuting Mark Steyn in clear violation of his right to free speech-except he doesn’t have that right up there, so he’s being charged with a hate crime for pointing out facts that some people don’t like*, and it’s all perfectly legal.

*Objectively, I find the Mark Steyn case far, far more troubling than the Omar Khadr one, with potentially much more serious repercussions for a society that wants to consider itself “free”, but it’s being done in accordance with your laws, the same way Omar Khadr is being treated in accordance with our laws (even if our laws in this particular circumstance are evolving as the process goes on).

128

A person killed by a fifteen year old is just as dead as someone killed by an old age pensioner or are we supposed to write it off as a youthful indiscretion and forget all about it as no doubt he will be a good boy in the future?

And anyway no doubt he was out on a purely innocent birdwatching expedition or the like.

I know that its the response of most people that if there is lethal fighting in their area they dont stay in a place of safety but make a point of deliberately going to where the fighting is just to have a look or to meet their friends or go shopping or whatever just as though it was an ordinary day.
Any people who make a point of emigrating to a country uninvited,accepts its hospitality and then repay that hospitality by doing everything in their power to undermine their hosts way of life,up to and including killing aren’t going to be the most honest or trustworthy of witnesses about ANYTHING at all let alone their own actions.

I’ve no doubt at all that this person is feeling sorry,not sorry for his actions but sorry that he got caught.

Of course after his first kill he might have totally abandoned his beliefs and never of killed again .
It all depends on how likely you think that that scenario is.

129

So far as I am concerned, every word of that is irrelevant to the situation. He has not been tried before a disinterested tribunal and he has not been convicted and the punishment he has suffered has not adhered to sentencing guidelines.

Either we are a country of laws or we are not. All that emotional nonsense about hospitality and gratitude is garbage when it comes to depriving someone of his freedom and subjecting him to punishment.

Otherwise, we are no better than the guy who randomly kills innocents on the street.

130

[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
…I’ve no doubt at all that this person is feeling sorry,not sorry for his actions but sorry that he got caught…
[/QUOTE]

Omniscience is such a marvelous quality! How did you come by it?

131

[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
Any people who make a point of emigrating to a country uninvited,accepts its hospitality and then repay that hospitality by doing everything in their power to undermine their hosts way of life,up to and including killing aren’t going to be the most honest or trustworthy of witnesses about ANYTHING at all let alone their own actions.
[/QUOTE]

An excellent point, but completely irrelevant since Khadr was born and raised in Canada. His parents aren’t in custody; he is.

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Really, how long must we continue with the foolish “The Constitution of the U.S. applies to all people, everywhere” nonsense? Hell, right now you guys are prosecuting Mark Steyn in clear violation of his right to free speech-except he doesn’t have that right up there, so he’s being charged with a hate crime for pointing out facts that some people don’t like*, and it’s all perfectly legal.
[/QUOTE]

You’re either being extremely dishonest or extremely stupid here.

Pol Pot, Holocaust victims and Nelson Mandela were not in American custody.

132

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
That’s why The Holocaust was such a tragedy, it was unconstitutional.
[/QUOTE]

Didn’t happen in the United States, didn’t involve American authorities, so quite pointless. *If you have a cite that the rights in the Bill of Rights are entirely reserved for citizens, let’s see it. *

Put up or shut up.

Who said “Everywhere”? Not me.

Mark Steyn isn’t being charged or prosecuted for any crime related to anything he has said or written, nor has he in the past. Perhaps you are insane.

133

87 Canadians have died in Afghanistan between February 2002 and now. Undoubtedly some of the folks they are firing on and killing are “child” non-traditional-combatants with grenade launchers and automatic weapons bent on killing more Canadians.
Non-combatant civilians 15 and younger are undoubtedly also accidentally being killed. Both of these things are happening almost every day and have been happening for 6 years now. I understand from that perspective concern about “child soldier” Khadar is outrageously overdone.

War is ugly and messy and a non-traditional war all the more so. I understand that Harper et al. hope that the removal of people like Khadar from the Theater makes the time that all these brave Canadian’s sacrifice of health, life and time away from home will be worthwhile. I can understand that.

Still, he has been held at Guantanamo without trial for 6 years. He has been tortured by most definitions of the word. Please understand that (esp. given the above) that I don’t think this is the greatest but injustice everTM but I believe that the treatment of these people is a black-eye for the U.S. and will always be remembered so. Canada would be wise not to play and should demand that the U.S. do this in real court -even if it means the “kid” walks because he was tortured. It think that would be a great way for the U.S. and Canada to honor the Canadians who have given so much.

134

[QUOTE=RickJay]
That isn’t what it actually says, you know. In fact, that’s not even close to what it says.

The Fifth Amendment does not say “Citizen” or “American.” It specifically requires that no person can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

The Sixth Amendment, which requires speedy trials, refers to “All criminal prosecutions” and refers simply to the right of “the accused” to a speedy trial. No specific rights are reserved for citizens.

The Eighth Amendment does not assign any rights to anyone, citizen or otherwise. It simply states that cruel and unusual punishment cannot be inflicted (as well as excessive bail or fines.)
[/QUOTE]

The Fourteenth Amendment does make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens in due process, but applies to state laws only.

Beyond this there is the question of territorial jurisdiction, which springs not from the Bill of Rights but from long standing common law concepts of where civil and criminal law (and even military law) apply. So within the United States a defendant is entitled to protections of the law even if he is an alien. On a foreign battlefield, some sort of martial law would presumably apply, with habeas rights frequently not recognized - and this would be so even though we would hold jurisdiction there of territory we control and prisoners we capture - the Geneva Conventions make that pretty clear.

135

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
The Fourteenth Amendment does make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens in due process, but applies to state laws only.
[/QUOTE]

The Fourteenth Amendment isn’t really part of the “Bill of Rights,” anyway. My understanding was that “The Bill of Rights” is taken to mean the first ten amendments (even though many of the subsequent amendments have to do with rights.)

SOME of the rights do seem to be restricted to citizens of the United States. Some of the amendments refer specifically to “The People,” which, if you read the entire Constitution, appears to refer,specifically, to Americans. Others, however, avoid that usage, such as the sixth amendment (speedy fair trial) or even more strikingly the eighth amendment, which simply prohibits the government from doing something (cruel and unusual punishment.) There simply is no sane or intelligent interpretation of the Constitution that would allow for the Eighth Amendment to not apply to someone because they were not an American citizen.

I wholeheartedly agree that in the context of a war zone, it’s kind of unreasonable to hold a military formation to the standards of the Bill of Rights. It doesn’t apply in Afgahnistan, in any case, although other American statutes might (the UCMJ, I’d assume.)

The fact is, however, that Khadr isn’t in a war zone anymore; he is being held on U.S.-occupied territory. It’s absurd to pretend he’s not in American custody. He is, according to his captors, NOT a prisoner of war. He is supposedly awaiting trial. Absent a compelling argument otherwise, it’s just common sense he should be granted the basic rights of an accused.

I think the Khadr family are a pack of fascist scum, but the rules is the rules.

136

[QUOTE=jimmmy]
[<snip>
Still, he has been held at Guantanamo without trial for 6 years. He has been tortured by most definitions of the word. Please understand that (esp. given the above) that I don’t think this is the greatest but injustice everTM but I believe that the treatment of these people is a black-eye for the U.S. and will always be remembered so. Canada would be wise not to play and should demand that the U.S. do this in real court -even if it means the “kid” walks because he was tortured. It think that would be a great way for the U.S. and Canada to honor the Canadians who have given so much.
[/QUOTE]

I like this idea - something like Canada does not recognize the suspension of human rights for prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, and if you guys won’t try him, send him home to Canada and we will.

137

No way! We do that, first thing, you guys will start in whining about “evidence” and “proof”.

138

[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
A person killed by a fifteen year old is just as dead as someone killed by an old age pensioner or are we supposed to write it off as a youthful indiscretion and forget all about it as no doubt he will be a good boy in the future.

I know that its the response of most people that if there is lethal fighting in their area they dont stay in a place of safety but make a point of deliberately going to where the fighting is just to have a look or to meet their friends or go shopping or whatever just as though it was an ordinary day..
[/QUOTE]

A 15 yr old IS a child. Perhaps if there is lethal fighting in their area it seems to be of more concern then what’s on tv, the latest game or who likes who at school

Or how you perceive stereotypes of immigrants to be.

Seriously who can immigrate to any country uninvited (illegals excluded) , in every country there are many conditions that need to be made. I’m sorry if I missed the news when this boy killed anyone in Canada.

G Bay is seriously taking the the piss out of human rights compared to just about anywhere in the world. Human rights just don’t exisit. Shit, the guilty bastards need court cases first! Those innocent bastards caught up in this need a chance to go home.

139

Funny how everyone except the people making the decisions that allow Gitmo to be what it is get that, kiwi. I think what we’re seeing here is a living example of, “Arrest and detain everyone, and let God sort 'em out.”

140

[QUOTE=calm kiwi]

Or how you perceive stereotypes of immigrants to be.

[/QUOTE]

Got to be quick,working.

Its not my perception of immigrants,its my perception of someone who kills someone when aged 15 whatever his nationality or skin colour.

We have 15 year olds stabbing other kids to death over here in the U.K. and I dont think that they are suddenly to undergo a change of character as they get older.